The Ultimate quest for 8500 RPM engine build
09-22-2006, 02:32 PM
#137
Intermediate
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Genoa, IL
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to keep bumping this page up, and I'm sure Kevin would post any progress, but is this build still happening? I am very anxious to hear how this engine turns out, as I would love a high revving TT engine my self!
11-27-2006, 08:54 PM
#141
Vince, check the torque curve of Jean's vs the sportec motor.
Originally Posted by Kevin
Here is the dyno sheet for this engine... This is what the engine left with to go racing. However, this engine hit close to 950Nm..
11-28-2006, 06:03 AM
#142
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Brad
You just can't compare dyno sheets between different dynos and even different operators on the same dyno !
Maybe peak power numbers could be somewhat comparable but torque delivery, particularly lower down is dependant on how the dyno is loaded up - I do not believe Jean's 3.8 motor has only 350NM @ 3500rpm compared to 734NM for the Sportec
FWIW IMO the Sportec torque curve wreaks of chassis dyno torque inflation a la Weltmiester.
Edit: Said chassis dyno torque inflation is not meant as a pop at the operator, just a comment that chassis dynos always seem to pump out bigger peak torque numbers than engine dynos, the Weltmiester thread being the classic exceptionally inflated example
You just can't compare dyno sheets between different dynos and even different operators on the same dyno !
Maybe peak power numbers could be somewhat comparable but torque delivery, particularly lower down is dependant on how the dyno is loaded up - I do not believe Jean's 3.8 motor has only 350NM @ 3500rpm compared to 734NM for the Sportec
FWIW IMO the Sportec torque curve wreaks of chassis dyno torque inflation a la Weltmiester.
Edit: Said chassis dyno torque inflation is not meant as a pop at the operator, just a comment that chassis dynos always seem to pump out bigger peak torque numbers than engine dynos, the Weltmiester thread being the classic exceptionally inflated example
Last edited by TB993tt; 11-29-2006 at 10:46 AM.
11-28-2006, 06:34 AM
#143
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Brad,
Not getting into a pissing match, but I find it strange that yesterday you asked me this same question in private and I explained to you what TB just said as well, yet you decided to post these graphs of my car and the Sportec car.
Comparing these dyno charts or any chassis vs engine dyno, or any two different operators or any chassis dyno... or whatever....does not make any sense. Let's see the acceleration numbers and known weight of this car. I did my 100-200kph runs at less than 1.2 bar.
As I also mentioned to you yesterday, I have another run done on a MAHA chassis dyno that shows 20-30% more torque downlow on my same engine up until 5k RPMs or so, at 1 Bar of boost (1.2 Bar on this one), on pump gas (104octane on this one), and a shut down exhaust pipe (no exhaust on this one)due to noise restrictions in Germany, so what does that tell us about dynos? You will agree that the Manthey MAHA should have showed much worse torque under these unfavourable conditions? Yet they were 30% higher.
I also mentioned to you , that I will accept to race this or any other street Sportec monster anytime and will pay for the shipping of their car to Dubai if I loose. Nothing against Sportec, I have a lot of respect for Gunther and Ueli, but I don't know what these graphs are trying to prove?
Not getting into a pissing match, but I find it strange that yesterday you asked me this same question in private and I explained to you what TB just said as well, yet you decided to post these graphs of my car and the Sportec car.
Comparing these dyno charts or any chassis vs engine dyno, or any two different operators or any chassis dyno... or whatever....does not make any sense. Let's see the acceleration numbers and known weight of this car. I did my 100-200kph runs at less than 1.2 bar.
As I also mentioned to you yesterday, I have another run done on a MAHA chassis dyno that shows 20-30% more torque downlow on my same engine up until 5k RPMs or so, at 1 Bar of boost (1.2 Bar on this one), on pump gas (104octane on this one), and a shut down exhaust pipe (no exhaust on this one)due to noise restrictions in Germany, so what does that tell us about dynos? You will agree that the Manthey MAHA should have showed much worse torque under these unfavourable conditions? Yet they were 30% higher.
I also mentioned to you , that I will accept to race this or any other street Sportec monster anytime and will pay for the shipping of their car to Dubai if I loose. Nothing against Sportec, I have a lot of respect for Gunther and Ueli, but I don't know what these graphs are trying to prove?
11-28-2006, 08:02 AM
#144
Originally Posted by Jean
Brad,
Not getting into a pissing match, but I find it strange that yesterday you asked me this same question in private and I explained to you what TB just said as well, yet you decided to post these graphs of my car and the Sportec car.
Comparing these dyno charts or any chassis vs engine dyno, or any two different operators or any chassis dyno... or whatever....does not make any sense. Let's see the acceleration numbers and known weight of this car. I did my 100-200kph runs at less than 1.2 bar.
As I also mentioned to you yesterday, I have another run done on a MAHA chassis dyno that shows 20-30% more torque downlow on my same engine up until 5k RPMs or so, at 1 Bar of boost (1.2 Bar on this one), on pump gas (104octane on this one), and a shut down exhaust pipe (no exhaust on this one)due to noise restrictions in Germany, so what does that tell us about dynos? You will agree that the Manthey MAHA should have showed much worse torque under these unfavourable conditions? Yet they were 30% higher.
I also mentioned to you , that I will accept to race this or any other street Sportec monster anytime and will pay for the shipping of their car to Dubai if I loose. Nothing against Sportec, I have a lot of respect for Gunther and Ueli, but I don't know what these graphs are trying to prove?
Not getting into a pissing match, but I find it strange that yesterday you asked me this same question in private and I explained to you what TB just said as well, yet you decided to post these graphs of my car and the Sportec car.
Comparing these dyno charts or any chassis vs engine dyno, or any two different operators or any chassis dyno... or whatever....does not make any sense. Let's see the acceleration numbers and known weight of this car. I did my 100-200kph runs at less than 1.2 bar.
As I also mentioned to you yesterday, I have another run done on a MAHA chassis dyno that shows 20-30% more torque downlow on my same engine up until 5k RPMs or so, at 1 Bar of boost (1.2 Bar on this one), on pump gas (104octane on this one), and a shut down exhaust pipe (no exhaust on this one)due to noise restrictions in Germany, so what does that tell us about dynos? You will agree that the Manthey MAHA should have showed much worse torque under these unfavourable conditions? Yet they were 30% higher.
I also mentioned to you , that I will accept to race this or any other street Sportec monster anytime and will pay for the shipping of their car to Dubai if I loose. Nothing against Sportec, I have a lot of respect for Gunther and Ueli, but I don't know what these graphs are trying to prove?
Like the 1/4, fwiw I don't think high speed runs are a level playing field either.
Data correlating these runs and holy grail dynos would be necessary before I consider statements regarding their accuracy to evidence based.
Back to the task at hand, I'm still considering going to a map based engine. Glad I didn't go with Jean's 54trim compressors as I'm told the k24 turbines would have been overloaded.
11-28-2006, 08:20 AM
#145
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Acropora
Like the 1/4, fwiw I don't think high speed runs are a level playing field either..
By "high speed runs" you mean 60-130mph ? If yes then "a level playing field" for what
The 60-130mph is for YOU -not anyone else. YOU are the one who knows what conditions you did the run in (climate/terrain/weight/octane) and it is for your benefit so you can gauge against all the other data here -It is not a competition but a tool for you to satisfy yourself that you got what you paid for.
Originally Posted by Acropora
Data correlating these runs and holy grail dynos would be necessary before I consider statements regarding their accuracy to evidence based.
.
.
11-28-2006, 09:51 AM
#146
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by Acropora
Vince, check the torque curve of Jean's vs the sportec motor.
02-01-2007, 01:46 PM
#149
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Thread Starter
It's winter still, this is a project motor.. Yes, the 996 project is taking alll of my spare time.. Interesting little fact.. The 993TT perfected my Stage 2 turbochargers and all the data and system information that I learned from the 993TT spun over to the 996TT. I get to repay the 993TT platform with the favor with the Stage 3 system.. I get to perfect on the 996TT and bring it back to the 993TT... The MAF solution that was worked out with the 996TT will carry over to the 993TT.. We will also see a new tuning solution for the 993TT this coming year..
Which brings me to, if anyone has any spare '96 ECU's lying around. I'd like to purchase them from you.
Which brings me to, if anyone has any spare '96 ECU's lying around. I'd like to purchase them from you.
05-04-2007, 11:06 PM
#150
Just a quick question on the Ti rods - are they really requiring measurement and inspection like AL rods would?